State v. Schutter’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2017
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Glasser v. United States · Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers · Crow v. Crow · Territory of Hawaii v. Van Culin · Territory v. Kekipi
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a trial judge has the right to examine witnesses to elicit pertinent material facts not brought out by either party or to clarify testimony. Such power is incident to the search for truth injudicial proceedings. At no time, however, must the court assume the role of an advocate for either party. In this connection, the following observations are pertinent: The power or discretion of a trial judge to question a witness is not unlimited or unbounded .... While the mere fact that the judge examines a witness at some length is not necessarily improper, it is improper for a judge to conduct an unduly extended examination of any witness. Moreover, the judge should not by the form, manner or extent of his questioning indicate to the jury his opinion as to the merits of the case, and the judge must be ever cautious that his questioning of a witness not show bias toward the witness or disbelief of his credibility. The judge should not assume the role of an advocate for either party nor cast aspersions or ridicule upon the witness. . . . This power to interrogate must be judiciously exercised, and the examination ought not to be extended beyond that which is reasonably necessary to elicit needed material facts or to clarify testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hutch“(5) Whenever any person is convicted of criminal contempt of court or sentenced therefor, the particular circumstances of the offense shall be fully set forth in the judgment and in the order or warrant of commitment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hicks
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.